History
  • No items yet
midpage
408 F.Supp.3d 583
E.D. Pa.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Safehouse, a Pennsylvania nonprofit, proposed an Overdose Prevention Site with medically supervised consumption and observation rooms, sterile equipment, fentanyl test strips, emergency medical intervention, and referrals to treatment; staff will not handle or provide controlled substances.
  • The United States sued for a declaratory judgment seeking to enjoin operation under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) (the “crack house” statute); Safehouse counterclaimed and invoked RFRA.
  • The case was decided on the pleadings (Rule 12(c)); the controlling legal question was statutory interpretation of § 856(a)(2): whether Safehouse would “make available for use…for the purpose of unlawfully…using a controlled substance.”
  • The court found the statutory language susceptible to multiple interpretations, reviewed textual canons and legislative evidence (particularly the 2003 PROTECT Act amendment), and rejected reliance on circuit precedent that read § 856(a)(2) more broadly.
  • Holding: (a)(2)’s “for the purpose of” refers to the actor’s purpose (the person who manages/controls the place) and requires that facilitating unlawful drug use be a significant (not merely incidental) purpose; applying that standard, Safehouse’s harm-reduction purpose does not violate § 856(a)(2).
  • Because § 856(a)(2) did not apply, the court denied the Government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and declined to reach the Commerce Clause question; Safehouse’s RFRA claim was moot.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether § 856(a)(2) prohibits Safehouse’s consumption rooms §856(a)(2) applies broadly; making property available where illegal use occurs violates the statute Safehouse’s primary purpose is harm reduction/medical care, not to facilitate unlawful use; CSA does not authorize criminalization of medical practice §856(a)(2) does not reach Safehouse: Safehouse’s purposes are lawful and not a significant purpose to facilitate unlawful use
Whose purpose does “for the purpose of” refer to Government: refers to the purpose of the third-party users (so actor’s intent irrelevant) Safehouse: refers to the purpose of the place or the actor managing it Court: refers to the actor’s purpose (person who makes the place available)
How to measure the proscribed purpose (sole, any, or significant purpose?) Any purpose that permits or requires unlawful use suffices Purpose must be the primary/sole objective; incidental/medical aims are excluded Proscribed purpose must be a significant or one of the primary purposes (not merely incidental)
Whether the CSA or Gonzales authorizes Safehouse’s activities Government: CSA and scheduling show medical use of many illicit drugs is not accepted; statute may criminalize Safehouse Safehouse: Gonzales limits federal regulation of legitimate medical practice; CSA does not affirmatively prohibit harm-reduction sites Court: Gonzales distinguishable; no express CSA authorization exists but statute, properly read, does not criminalize Safehouse’s harm-reduction purpose

Key Cases Cited

  • Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) (limits Attorney General power to redefine legitimate medical practice under the CSA)
  • United States v. Chen, 913 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1991) (interpreted §856(a)(2) to require only knowledge of third-party use; court here critiques and rejects Chen’s reasoning)
  • United States v. Tamez, 941 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1991) (followed Chen’s logic on §856(a)(2))
  • United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483 (2001) (medical necessity is not a defense to CSA distribution prohibitions)
  • United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971) (criminal statutes should be construed narrowly; legislatures, not courts, define crimes)
  • United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76 (1820) (Marshall on strict construction of penal laws)
  • United States v. Coles, [citation="558 F. App'x 173"] (3d Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential panel decision consistent with viewing the actor’s purpose as controlling)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. SAFEHOUSE
Court Name: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Date Published: Oct 2, 2019
Citations: 408 F.Supp.3d 583; 2:19-cv-00519
Docket Number: 2:19-cv-00519
Court Abbreviation: E.D. Pa.
Log In
    United States v. SAFEHOUSE, 408 F.Supp.3d 583